Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, the Petitioner has been employed as a firefighter with the City of Miami, Florida. He received his Certificate of Compliance with the Division of the State Fire Marshal on August 25, 1976. On August 25, 1988, Petitioner applied to the Respondent for Firefighter Supplemental Compensation pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, at the bachelor's level. On September 21, 1988, Respondent notified Fire Chief C. H. Duke, City of Miami Fire Department, that Petitioner's application was accepted. This notification provided, in part that "... the firefighter will receive Supplemental Compensation for qualifying under the requirements of Section 633.382, Florida Statutes and Rule 4A-37.78 for possession of a/an [sic] Bachelor's degree of Business Administration." On November 20, 1989, Respondent asked Petitioner to provide a copy of his undergraduate transcript. In response to that request, Petitioner provided a copy of his transcripts from the University of Arkansas, Miami Dade Community College, and Barry University. On April 4, 1990, Petitioner was informed that he was being removed from the Firefighter Supplemental Compensation Program. This determination was based on a reevaluation of his transcripts which reflected that he did not possess an eligible Associate or Bachelor's Degree as required by Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, and by Rule 4A-37.085, Florida Administrative Code. [Formerly Rule 4A-37.076, Florida Administrative Code.] Petitioner received 8 credit hours at the University of Arkansas, 27 credit hours at Miami Dade Community College, and 36 credit hours from Barry University. Petitioner received a Master of Business Administration Degree from Barry University on May 6, 1988. Petitioner does not possess an Associate degree or Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order which DENIES Petitioner's eligibility to participate in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation program. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 90-2922 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-9 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 10 are rejected as being merely recitation of testimony in the form of excerpts from the affidavit of George J. Petrello, Ph.D., the former Dean of the Business Executive Program at Barry University. The statements in Paragraph 5 are overly broad and fail to consider the well recognized differences between a bachelor's program and a master's program, particularly as to subjects outside the major field of study. The statements in Paragraph 6 merely reflect Dr. Petrello's interpretation of the pertinent statute and rule. His interpretation is clearly not the only permissible interpretation. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. Copies furnished: Kathleen Phillips, Esquire KAPLAN & BLOOM, P.A. 1951 Northwest 17th Avenue P. O. Drawer 520337 Miami, Florida 33152 Lisa B. Santucci, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner, who on November 17, 1999 (two days prior to the final hearing in this case) was certified by Respondent to be eligible to receive, effective June 1, 1999, firefighter supplemental compensation pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, is entitled to any further relief from Respondent in this administrative proceeding (which was initiated by Petitioner after he had received Respondent's June 2, 1999, notice of its preliminary determination that Petitioner was not entitled to firefighter supplemental compensation).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: In August 1994, Petitioner applied to Respondent for entry in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program (1994 Application). The application materials that Respondent received were a completed and signed Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program Transcript Request form; a copy of Petitioner's transcript from North Carolina Central University (reflecting that he had graduated on May 10, 1986, with a Bachelor of Science degree in biology), along with a cover letter to Respondent from the Office of the University Registrar; a job description; and a letter to Respondent from Petitioner, which read as follows: Enclosed [y]ou will find information regarding my educational earnings. I received a Bachelor of Science (Biology) in May, 1986 from North Carolina Central University in Durham. Additionally, I have earned 29 credits at Miami Dade Community College [a]nd I [a]m [a] Paramedic. Please [r]eview [t]his information and include me in the supplemental compensation program. I[']d [l]ike to thank you in advance for your time and consideration. The job description that was included in the application materials Respondent received was for the classification of Fire Fighter and read as follows: NATURE OF WORK: Skilled fire-fighting work in combating, extinguishing and preventing fires, and in the operation and maintenance of fire department equipment, apparatus and quarters. Work involves responsibility for protecting life and property by fire-fighting and rescue activities, usually under close supervision. Employees of this class are required to learn and participate in the operation of fire apparatus and equipment, and the performance of hazardous tasks under emergency conditions which may require strenuous exertion under such handicaps as smoke and cramped surroundings. Although fire-fighting and rescue activities are the primary responsibilities of this class, the major portion of time is spent in drilling and studying methods, techniques and organization, and in routine duties in the care and maintenance of fire department property and equipment. Employees of this class may be assigned to duty as communications officer, chief driver and aide, and fire prevention inspector, which involves the application of specialized abilities and knowledge developed through experience and training. Specific orders and directions are given by superior officers, but the work requires initiative and a thorough individual understanding of fire- fighting methods. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF WORK PERFORMED: (The examples of work as listed in this class specification are not necessarily descriptive of any one position in the class. The omission of specific statements does not preclude management from assigning specific duties not listed herein if such duties are a logical assignment to the position. Examples of work performed are not to be used for allocation purposes.) Attends training courses; participation in fire drills and attends classes in fire- fighting and first aid; reads and studies assigned materials related to fire-fighting and prevention. Responds to fire alarms with a company; operates pumps, aerial ladders and auxiliary equipment; lays and connects hose; holds nozzles and directs fog or water streams; raises and climbs ladders; uses chemical extinguishers, bars, hooks, lines and other equipment. Performs general maintenance work in the upkeep of fire department property; cleans and washes walls and floors; makes minor repairs to property and equipment; washes, hangs, and dries hoses; washes, cleans, polishes and tests apparatus. Performs limited fire prevention activities; inspects commercial and residential properties for the existence of fire hazards, and seeks removal of such hazards through education and persuasion. When assigned to the Rescue Division the Fire-Fighter should be able to accurately and efficiently evaluate and gather patient assessment information; interpret assessment finding; formulate a working diagnosis (i.e. possible M.I.); plan, prioritize and implement necessary treatment as per Rescue protocol and/or physician direction via the radio; evaluate treatment outcome and re- assess the patient's status; plan and implement additional treatment or modifications as indicated by re-assessment and follow-up evaluation. When assigned as a fire inspector, inspects buildings and premises; reviews plans for compliance with fire regulations specified in the City of Miami Building Code; checks on complaints; and may aid investigation of arson cases when assigned to fire prevention duties. Performs other related work as required. DESIRABLE KNOWLEDGE, ABILITIES AND SKILLS: (The knowledge, skills and abilities identified in this class specification represent those needed to perform the duties of this class. Additional knowledge, skills and abilities may be applicable for individual positions in the employing departments.) Some knowledge of the street system and physical layout of the City of Miami. Ability to learn a wide variety of fire- fighting duties and methods within a reasonable working test period. Ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with other employees and the general public. Ability to understand and follow oral and written instructions. Ability to perform limited mechanical work involved in maintaining fire-fighting and rescue apparatus, equipment and tools. Physical strength, endurance, agility and freedom from serious physical defects as shown by a physical examination. Coordination and dexterity. DESIRABLE BASIC TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE: Graduation from high school or State of Florida Equivalency Certificate OR Equivalent combination of training and experience. By letter dated August 23, 1994, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had determined that he was not qualified to receive supplemental compensation. The letter, which was received by Petitioner on September 6, 1994, read as follows: After reviewing your transcript, it has been determined that you do not possess an appropriate Major Study Concentration Area to qualify for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor level. Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code, does not list Biology as a "Major Study Concentration Area." Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code, states: "4A-37.084 Definitions. For purposes of this part, terms used in Rules 4A-37.082-4A- 37.089 are as defined in Section 633.382(1), Florida Statutes, and terms which are not otherwise defined in said statutes are defined as follows: 'Bachelor's Degree' means a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree conferred by an accredited post-secondary institution provided the major study concentration area is readily identifiable and applicable as fire related. A firefighter may receive Supplemental Compensation based on possession of a Bachelor's Degree regardless of whether or not an Associate Degree was previously earned. In no event shall receipt of a transcript for an Associate Degree be used in consideration for qualification of the Bachelor's Degree Supplemental Compensation. The major study concentration area, at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours, [must] be readily identifiable and applicable as fire related. Specific Authority 633,45(2)(a) FS. Law Implemented 633.382(2) FS. History-New 01-03-90." 1/ At this level of the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program it has been determined that your Bachelor Degree is not readily identifiable and applicable as fire related, per Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 4-121 and 28-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), you have a right to request a proceeding to contest this action by the Department. You may elect a proceeding by completing the attached Election of Rights form or filing a Petition. Your Petition or Election of a proceeding must be in writing and must be filed with the General Counsel acting as the Agency Clerk, Department of Insurance. If served by U.S. Mail, the Petition or Election should be addressed to the Florida Department of Insurance, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300. If Express Mail or hand delivery is utilized, the Petition or Election should be delivered to 448 Fletcher Building, 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300. The Petition of Election must be received by, and filed in the Department within twenty-one (21) days of the date of your receipt of this notice. If a proceeding is requested and there is no dispute of fact, the provisions of Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, would apply. In this regard you may submit oral or written evidence in opposition to the action taken by this agency or a written statement challenging the grounds upon which the agency has relied. While a hearing is normally not required in the absence of a dispute of fact, if you feel that a hearing is necessary one will be conducted in Tallahassee, Florida or by telephonic conference call upon your request. If you dispute material facts which are the basis for this agency's action, you may request a formal adversarial proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. If you request this type of proceeding, the request must comply with all of the requirements of Rule Chapters 4-121 and 28-5, F.A.C. and contain: A statement identifying with particularity the allegations of the Department which you dispute and the nature of the dispute; An explanation of what relief you are seeking and believe you are entitled to; Any other information which you contend is material. These proceedings are held before a State hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Unless the majority of witnesses are located elsewhere, the Department will request the hearing be conducted in Tallahassee. Unless a Petition or Election or your written submission challenging this action is received by the Department within twenty-one (21) days from the date of the receipt of this notice, the right to a proceeding shall be deemed waived. Failure to follow the procedure outlined with regard to your response to this notice may result in the request being denied. All prior correspondence in this matter shall be considered freeform agency action, and no such correspondence shall operate as a valid request for an administrative proceeding. Any request for administrative proceeding received prior to the date of this notice shall be deemed abandoned unless timely renewed in compliance with the guidelines as set out above. Petitioner did not file a "Petition or Election or . . . written submission challenging this action [described in Respondent's August 23, 1994 letter]" within 21 days of the date of his receipt of the letter. He next corresponded with Respondent in May of 1999, when he applied for a second time for entry in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. Along with a completed and signed Application for Initial Entry into Supplemental Compensation Program (Second Application), he sent Respondent a copy of his transcript from North Carolina Central University and an "official job description for current position held: FIREFIGHTER/PARAMEDIC," which was different than the job description that had accompanied his 1994 Application and which read as follows: Firefighter Definition: The term firefighter is used to describe all individuals assigned to the various areas within the City of Miami Fire Department. The responsibilities of a Firefighter are very diverse and require specialized training in many areas. Fire Suppression: These individuals are responsible for protecting life and property by means of fire extinguishment. This individual must have a working knowledge of pumps, water friction and resistance tables as well as ropes, foams and nozzles, infra- red cameras and basic building construction and style. Throughout the fire service, physical fitness is important. Hazardous Material Team: Work involves protecting life and property from toxic substances. Must have a working knowledge of fundamental chemistry and chemical interactions with each other. Must be able to identify Department of Transportation Placards to determine substances being transported by vehicles. Additionally, individuals must be familiar with explosive ranges of gases and mixture that have the potential to explode or cause harm to others. Must understand hazardous materials containment areas and the various levels of protective clothing w[o]rn. Emergency Medical Services: Work involves protecting life through use of basic life support and advance life support methods. Individuals involved in these services work under the license and management of a medical director. Paramedics are generally assigned to these positions when possible. Individuals should be able to accurately gather and interpret patient information to formulate a working diagnosis and provide necessary treatment as per protocol or physician[']s direction. Personnel [are] responsible for calculating and administering various drugs under stressful conditions (i.e. cardiac arrest and major trauma) and reporting patient status and treatment via radio to the medical director. A working knowledge of anatomy and physiology, medical terms and conditions is required. Fire Prevention Bureau: Work involves inspecting buildings and premises; reviewing plans for compliance with fire regulations specified in the City of Miami Building Code; checking on complaints; investigating arson cases and conducting public education throughout the City of Miami. Petitioner did not indicate, in submitting his Second Application, that he was seeking anything other than prospective entry in the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. Respondent preliminarily determined that Petitioner's Second Application should be denied because his "Major Study Concentration Areas of Biology does not meet the criteria found in Rule 4A-37.084, Florida Administrative Code, for entry in the program," and so advised Petitioner, who subsequently requested an administrative hearing on the matter. Respondent, however, subsequently changed its mind regarding Petitioner's eligibility for the program and, by letter dated November 17, 1999 (two days prior to the final hearing in this case) advised Petitioner that, "[u]pon [f]urther review of [his] application, it had "found [Petitioner] to be eligible" and that he would receive supplemental compensation effective June 1, 1999. Respondent also prepared and sent to Chief James Fisher of the City of Miami Fire Rescue an Official Acceptance Notification, which read as follows: James E. Kemp, Social Security Number, . . ., has met the eligibility requirements for entry into the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. Effective June 1, 1999, Mr. Kemp will receive Supplemental Compensation for qualifying under the requirements of Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, and Rule 4A-37.085 for possession of a Bachelor's degree. Mr. Kemp will be eligible to receive up to $110.00 a month until such time as he may become ineligible in accordance with Rule 4A- 37.087. Please insure that the referenced firefighter's name and the amount of Supplemental Compensation paid, appears on your Quarterly Report (form FSTE-3). If any further information is needed, please do not hesitate to contact us. (A copy of this Official Acceptance Notification was sent to Petitioner.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to the additional relief he is seeking. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2000.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to supplemental compensation pursuant to the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program, by virtue of his Bachelor of Arts degree with a major course of study in Communications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, James A. Barr, is a certified firefighter/EMT. He has been employed full-time by the City of St. Petersburg Fire Department since 1996. On or about May 11, 1998, Petitioner applied for admission to the Firefighter’s Supplemental Compensation Program (the “Program”), pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes. The Program is a state fund providing additional compensation to firefighters who meet certain educational criteria over and above the basic training required for certification as a firefighter pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. The Program’s purpose is to provide an incentive for firefighters to pursue educational opportunities related to their fire department duties. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in Communications, from the University of South Florida in August 1995. Petitioner applied for compensation from the Program for his Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications. Respondent denied the application because a degree in Communications is not one of the nine acceptable majors listed in Rule 4A-37.084(5), Florida Administrative Code, nor is it otherwise “readily identifiable” to Petitioner’s duties as a firefighter. The pertinent portion of the rule states: (5) “Major Study Concentration Area” as identified on official sealed transcripts, includes a major in fire science, municipal management, public administration, business administration, computer science, engineering, management information systems, emergency medical technology, and paramedic technology. Petitioner conceded that Communications is not one of the listed “Major Study Concentration Areas,” but contended that a Communications major is “readily identifiable as applicable to fire department duties,” as stated in Rule 4A-37.084(3), Florida Administrative Code. Thomas M. Burton, Assistant Fire Chief, testified that the St. Petersburg Fire Department is very active in fire prevention, public education, and community service activities. New employees are required to take a five-week training program that includes public education activities. Trainees are required to develop a teaching outline covering safety concepts that a firefighter might use with elementary school children, and then must make a fifteen-minute presentation using vocabulary appropriate to a second grade class. Once on the job, firefighters are required to perform all manner of public education activities, addressing groups as diverse as senior citizens, college students, and elementary schoolchildren. The presentations may include discussion of smoke detectors, CPR, fall prevention, and swimming pool safety. The firefighters themselves are required to prepare their own presentations for these activities. Mr. Burton testified that he believes Petitioner’s Communications degree relates to many of his duties, especially the public education aspects of the job. Mr. Burton conceded that all firefighters must perform the public education duties he described, and that Petitioner is in no way singled-out for assignment to these duties. The City of St. Petersburg Fire Department’s written job description for firefighters does not include the public education activities described by Mr. Burton. The job description does include a statement that a firefighter must possess the ability “to communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.” Mr. Burton minimized the import of the written job description, stating that it is not an operating document that firefighters use to manage their day-to-day activities. He described it as more in the nature of a “mission statement” or a “value statement.” Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor for the Division of State Fire Marshall, is the person responsible for managing the Program. Mr. McCall reviews the applications and makes the decisions on accepting or denying them. Mr. McCall made the decision to deny Petitioner’s application. Mr. McCall testified that he reviews the applicant’s college transcript and written job description to determine whether the applicant’s college major relates to the duties set forth in the job description. Mr. McCall determined that Petitioner’s major in Communications was not “readily identifiable” to the fire department duties set forth in the job description. Mr. McCall acknowledged the language in the job description requiring firefighters to “communicate clearly and concisely,” but he described that as a generic phrase that is included in all or most job descriptions. He stated that firefighters are able to perform public presentations effectively without degrees in Communications. Mr. McCall testified that he would consider other factors, such as whether the applicant had been assigned to special duties relating to his college major. For example, Mr. McCall testified that he had previously approved an application for a Communications major where the applicant had been assigned to the training division and was the department’s video production person. Petitioner in this instance had been given no such special assignment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying James A. Barr’s application for entry into the Firefighters’ Supplemental Compensation Program, without prejudice to his ability to reapply in the event of changes to his job description or assignments. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1999. www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Gabriel Mazzeo, Esquire Division of State Fire Marshall Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Sylvia A. Barr, Esquire 2900 55th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for supplemental compensation pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Michigan State University. The degree was earned in the College of Communication Arts and Science. The major on the Petitioner's degree is advertising. 2. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree does not list any courses that appear to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A- 37.084(5) (b)1, Florida Administrative Code. 3. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree lists several courses that appear to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A-37.084(5) (b)2, Florida Administrative Code. However, there are not enough of such courses to comprise a major. 4. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree lists one course that appears to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A.37.084(5) (b)3, Florida Administrative Code. 5. The Petitioner is presently employed by the Miami Beach Fire Department as a Firefighter I. The Petitioner has been employed full-time in his present firefighter position at all times material to the pending application. 6. The Petitioner's fire department duties are described in a written position description for the Firefighter I position. It is clear from the description of those duties that a Firefighter I position with the Miami Beach Fire Department is not one of the "management positions within a fire department," nor is it a position that includes "arson investigators." Such a position is also not one of the "special positions" contemplated by Rule 4A-37.084(5) (b)4, Florida Administrative Code. 7. When the Petitioner submitted his present application, Floyd Jordan, the Fire Chief of the Miami Beach Fire Department, by letter dated November 15, 2000, advised the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training as follows: After review of the attached college transcript and the City of Miami Beach Job Description for Firefighter I, it is my conclusion that this request does not meet the requirements of the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. As of the date of the final hearing, Chief Jordan continued to be of the same view of the matter. 8. The Petitioner was previously employed by the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services as a firefighter/paramedic. The Petitioner's job duties in the Boca Raton position were essentially the same as his job duties in his present position. While employed with the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services, the Petitioner applied for supplemental compensation on the basis of the same bachelor's degree on which he bases his present application. The Petitioner's prior application was approved and he received supplemental compensation while employed with the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Chuck Pereny, pro se 259 Northwest 90th Avenue Coral Springs, Florida 33071 For Respondent: Elenita Gomez, Esquire James B. Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying the Petitioner's application and dismissing the petition in this case. Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. = DONE AND ENTERED this CS “day of June, 2001, in CH heseu Loe € MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this Q — day of June, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The Department excepts to a portion of the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #3 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The Hearing Officer finds that a degree in public affairs from Florida Atlantic University is known as a degree in public administration elsewhere. The Hearing Officer cites no record authority for this statement and it does not appear that any officials from Florida Atlantic University or any other post-secondary institutions testified as to what a public affairs degree could be known as at other institutions. Further, the documentary evidence does not support this finding by the Hearing Officer. Joint Exhibit 2 indicates that the Petitioner, Mr. Bingham, received a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Political Science from Florida Atlantic University. No where on the official sealed transcript does it indicate that Mr. Bingham received a degree in public affairs or public administration. The Department's exception to finding of fact 3 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #4 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 above, the Department's exception to finding of fact 4 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #9 on the basis that the Hearing Officer erroneously interpreted fire-related courses as a fire-related major study concentration area. The proper standard for reviewing Mr. Bingham's transcript is whether the major study concentration area is fire-related, not whether the Petitioner's major study concentration area includes courses that are job-related. "The intent of the statute and the rule is to require fire fighters to qualify themselves for the performance of their duties by taking fire science courses, not general courses which might be somewhat generally related to the fire fighting career." In the Matter of Jorge Du Quesne; Case No. 91-L-367AKL (Final Order entered November 22, 1991). The Department's exception to finding of fact 9 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding of fact #11 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. For the reasons set forth in paragraphs 1 and 3 above, the Department's exception to finding of fact #11 is accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #15 the reason being that the Hearing Officer uses an erroneous interpretation of the applicable Rules. It appears that in this conclusion of law the Hearing Officer is simply restating the provisions of Rule 4A-37.084(3) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Although some what difficult to follow, it does not appear that the Hearing Officer has erroneously interpreted this Rule. The Department's exception to conclusion of law #15 is rejected. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #16, again the reason being that the Hearing Officer uses an erroneous interpretation of the applicable Rules and that the conclusion is not supported by competent substantial evidence. The Hearing Officer has based this conclusion of law solely on her theory that if the Petitioner had not changed his major and had attended a different school he might have had his major called something else that would be fire-related. The Hearing Officer does not have authority to arbitrarily change the Petitioner's major study concentration area, nor is there substantial competent evidence in the record to support such a change. The Department's exception to conclusion of law #16 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #17 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Department's exception to conclusion of law #17 is accepted. The Department excepts to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law #18 on the basis that it is not supported by substantial competent evidence. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 2 above, the Department's exception to conclusion of law #18 is accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO RULINGS ON FINDINGS SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT IN APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 1. To the extent not inconsistent with the rulings on exceptions to findings of fact contained herein, the Department's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's appendix to Recommended Order are accepted. RULING ON EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing rulings on the Department's exceptions to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer's recommendation that the Petitioner be accepted into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program is rejected and the appropriate disposition of this case is that Petitioner is denied participation said program. Upon careful consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties and being otherwise advised in the premises, it is ORDERED: The Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer are adopted as the Department's Findings of Fact, with the exception of Findings of Fact #3, 4, 9 and 11. The Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are adopted as the Department's Conclusions of Law with the exception of Conclusions of Law #16, 17, and 18, That the Hearing Officer's recommendation that Mr. Bingham's request for entry into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program be accepted is rejected and the appropriate disposition of this case is that Mr. Bingham's request is denied. ACCORDINGLY, the request for entry into the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program submitted by WILLIAM L. BINGHAM is hereby DENIED. Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Order is entitled to seek review of this Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must be instituted by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the General Counsel, acting as the agency clerk, at 612 Larson Building, Tallahassee, Florida, and a copy of the same with the appropriate district court of appeal within thirty (30) days of rendition of this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of May 1993. TOM GALLAGHER Treasurer and State Fire Marshal COPIES FURNISHED: HONORABLE LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 WILLIAM L. BINGHAM 11156 Northwest 35th Street Sunrise, Florida 33351 DANIEL T. GROSS, ESQUIRE Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application for entry into the Firefighters' Supplemental Compensation Program at the bachelor's degree level. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-6278 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 5-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 4 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issue being determined herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 2, 9, 10, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-8 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issue being determined herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William L. Bingham 11156 Northwest 35th Street Sunrise, Florida 33351 Daniel T. Gross, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Petitioner passed the Practical Examination for Firefighter Retention test; and (2) whether Petitioner's application for firefighter recertification was properly denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner completed his minimum standards training and took the standardized state test in 2004 and Respondent issued him a Firefighter Certificate that year. Florida law requires Petitioner to be employed by a fire agency within a three year period after passing the state examination to keep his minimum standards credentials active. Petitioner is a full-time employee at American Medical Response. Because Petitioner has not been active as a firefighter during the past three years, Petitioner made application to the Department to take the Retention Examination. The practical portion consists of four sections or "evolutions" including the SCBA,1 the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire ground skills section. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each component. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain elements or skills that are graded. The SCBA portion of the test contains skills related to checking, donning, and properly activating the SCBA that enables a firefighter to breathe in a hostile environment, such as a burning building. The SCBA portion of the Retention Examination also has an established maximum time allotted for the examinee to complete a minimum of 70 percent of the skills. The time limitation is a mandatory requirement. If an examinee completes a minimum of 70 percent of the skills in a particular part, but fails to do so within the maximum allotted time specified for that part, the examinee has not met the mandatory time requirement and, thus, is not awarded any points for that part. Petitioner took the initial Retention Examination in May 2009. Petitioner did not pass the SCBA and fire ground skills components of the practical portion of the initial exam. On September 24, 2009, Petitioner took the Retention Examination re-test for the SCBA and fire skills components. Petitioner passed the fire skills component. The maximum time allotted for completion of the SCBA part of the Retention Examination is two minutes. Petitioner's completion time on the September 2009 Retention Examination re- test was two minutes and 30 seconds. Because Petitioner failed to complete a minimum of 70 percent of skills in the SCBA portion of the Retention Examination within the maximum time allotted, the Bureau properly awarded him zero points. It is an automatic failure if an examinee does not complete the exam in time. Therefore, Petitioner did not earn a passing score on the Retention Examination re-test. As a result of Petitioner's failing to pass the Retention Examination, his Firefighter Certificate of compliance expired. The Division employs field representatives to administer the Retention Examination to examinees in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. Dennis Hackett is and has been a field representative with the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training for six years. As a field representative, Mr. Hackett administers and scores the minimum standards examination for firefighters, including the Retention Examination. Mr. Hackett has administered well over a thousand SCBA tests. Mr. Hackett was the examiner who tested Petitioner on the September 24, 2009, for re-test of the SCBA portion of the practical exam. Mr. Hackett timed Petitioner at two minutes and 30 seconds. Petitioner testified that before taking the retest, he practiced the SCBA test and had completed it within the time limit. Petitioner first learned SCBA skills in 2004 at the Coral Springs Fire Academy. At the academy, Petitioner took a three month, 450-hour course of fundamental firefighter skills. On or about September 16, 2009, Petitioner took a refresher course in Ocala, Florida. The course was two days and taught the SCBA skills in a manner different from how Petitioner had been taught at Coral Springs Fire Academy. Petitioner testified that the refresher course wasn't fair because he didn't have enough time to learn the new method. He asserted that the two day course was too short to learn the new method and techniques to compensate for errors. Petitioner admitted that a minor hiccup slowed him down while taking the re-test on September 24, 2009. Petitioner said, "It's not like I can't do it because I could do it, it's just I went over the time limit. I didn't have ample enough time to learn the new way of doing it or to overcome any minor obstacles." In a memorandum dated September 25, 2009, the Department formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the SCBA portion of the Minimum Standards Practical Retention Retest. The memorandum also informed Petitioner that, "Because you did not pass the retest, your Firefighter Certificate of compliance #117349, has expired as of 09/24/2009. It will be necessary for you to repeat the firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program and submit a new application before any additional testing can be allowed." An individual is allowed to re-take the Retention Examination one time. If the person does not pass the re-test, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program before he is eligible to re-take the Retention Examination. See § 633.352, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69A-37.0527. As noted above, Petitioner did not pass the SCBA portion of the Retention Examination re-test. Therefore, before he is eligible to re-take that examination, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to a passing grade for his performance on the Retention Examination re-test. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the Retention Examination re-test was appropriately and fairly graded.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Christian E. Behrens, is a certified firefighter and is currently employed by the City of Miami Beach Fire Department as a firefighter II. As such, Petitioner is a "firefighter" as defined by Section 633.382(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner has been employed by the City of Miami Beach Fire Department for approximately six and one-half years. He has an outstanding record with his employer and is highly rated in job performance. Petitioner received an associate in arts degree from Miami-Dade Community College in December, 1983. Petitioner received a bachelor of science degree from Florida International University with a major in computer science in April, 1987. Petitioner has completed in excess of the 18 semester credit hours of fire-related courses required for entry into the supplemental compensation program; however, such courses were completed after the Petitioner received the degrees described above and such courses were not included in the credits needed for the described degrees. The Department's position in this case is that the Petitioner would qualify for supplemental compensation at the associate degree level if he applies for, and receives, a second associate in arts degree from Miami-Dade Community College in either fire science or EMT technology. This would then qualify Petitioner under the associate level of compensation. Computer science is a valuable fire-related technology utilized by fire departments across this state. As a part of his regular duties, Petitioner has been required to learn, and teach to others, the statewide fire management information system. This system is mandated by the Department and is a computer program utilizing computers in the work place. Additionally, Petitioner has assisted in the design and implementation of his fire department's USC pen pad system. Again, this is a computer program mandated by his employer which utilizes computers in the work place. Additionally, Petitioner spends countless hours working with computers to assist in the daily function of his fire department. These hours are a part of, or are in addition to, other duties he performs for the fire department. Computers have become an indispensable portion of the operations of the Coral Gables Fire Department and, indeed assist all aspects of the fire department operation: from personnel to administration to actual fire fighting. As such Petitioner's skills and training make him a highly desirable employment prospect. Petitioner's expertise is considered by Operations Chief Cook to be invaluable and fire-related.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for supplemental compensation at the bachelor degree level. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4319 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 3, 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as a restatement of law. Paragraph 5 is rejected as a restatement of the statute and rule. Paragraph 6 is rejected as restatement of the rule. Paragraph 7 is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 11 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 12 is rejected as conclusion of law or argument. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 through 24, 31 through 33, 38 and 39 are accepted. Paragraphs 3 and 6 are accepted but are irrelevant. 3 Paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, and 37 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or not supported by credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 William Lance Gerlin 330 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Daniel T. Gross Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal (the Department), properly administered and graded the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination taken by Petitioner, Catalina Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for testing, monitoring and certifying firefighters. The Department conducts certification examinations at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, and some thirty-plus other sites around the State. Those sites are located on college campuses, training facilities, fire stations, and other locales. The test at issue in this proceeding was administered at the Fire College site. Catalina Williams is an Hispanic woman who desires to become a certified firefighter. Her interest in firefighting began when she worked as a photographer covering fire-related events for a magazine and thought it would be exciting and interesting to be on “the front line.” Williams has also served as a caregiver, giving her experience in providing assistance to others, and is a certified lifeguard. In order to accomplish her goal of becoming a firefighter, Williams entered into schooling to learn the trade. Williams first attended First Coast Technological College (First Coast) in 2009. She completed the Firefighter Minimum Basic Standards Course (Firefighter I) that year. In 2010, she enrolled at the school for the summer semester to begin training in the advanced (Firefighter II) curriculum. That school term was shorter and more compressed than a regular semester. Despite her best efforts, Williams did not successfully complete the Firefighter II course. Rochford was one of her instructors during her first unsuccessful enrollment at First Coast. In 2012, Williams entered First Coast again. At that time, she was working as a paid volunteer firefighter for Volusia County. The county paid her tuition costs at First Coast when Williams entered the school for the Firefighter II course work. The second time, Williams was able to successfully complete the course material and pass her final examination. Passing the final examination was a prerequisite to taking the State certification exam. While attending First Coast, Williams took hundreds of practice exams, especially on the practical portions of the tests. She took exams as part of her classes, took exams voluntarily with someone timing her, and took exams just to practice. The State Certification Exam There are four primary segments of the State certification exam: A written examination of 100 multiple choice questions; A hose evolution involving a self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and personal protection equipment (PPE); A ladder/search and rescue evolution; and A skills portion, involving ropes and knots, two fire ground skills, and a short test on the emergency response guide (ERG). The ladder/search and rescue evolution is a practical portion of the exam; it is the singular portion of the test at issue in this proceeding and will be referred to as the ladder evolution. The ladder evolution portion consists of the following tasks and assignments: The candidate inspects ladders hanging on a simulated fire truck. He or she then takes a 24-foot ladder from the truck and extends it against the wall of a building up to the second floor. Once that ladder is properly hoisted, the candidate confirms that a ladder guard (another candidate acting as a spotter) has control of the ladder. The candidate then initiates radio contact and then walks quickly around the building to another ladder that is already in place. He/she must ascend the ladder to the second floor, test the floor inside the building to make sure it is safe, and enter the building through a window. Upon entry the candidate must find a “victim” (a 125-pound mannequin) on the lower floor, secure the victim in an approved manner, and then exit the building with the mannequin. Upon exit, the candidate must safely deposit the victim on the ground and provide notice by way of radio contact that he/she and the victim are outside the building. The radio transmission is something along the lines of: “PAR 2 [Personnel Accountability Reporting, two people]. Firefighter No. “X” and victim have safely exited the building.” The entire ladder evolution sequence must be done within four minutes and 30 seconds although, as will be discussed below, there are differences of opinion as to when the timed portion of the evolution ends. It is necessary for candidates taking the test to pass each of the four sections. Failure of any one portion would result in failure overall. Should a candidate fail the examination, they must reschedule their retest within six months of the failed test. All retest examinations are administered at the Fire College. On test day, there may be dozens of applicants taking the test at the same time. The procedure dictates that candidates arrive at the test facility in time to process paperwork prior to the 7:30 a.m., test commencement. Candidates must first provide identification to an instructor and be assigned a candidate number. They then fill out paperwork, including a waiver should any injuries occur during testing. Candidates will have their gear inspected to make sure it is in compliance with State standards. Prior to commencement of testing, one of the instructors or examiners will read a document called the “Minimum Standards Pre-Exam Orientation” (the Orientation) to the candidates. During the reading of the Orientation, which may take 45 minutes to an hour or more, candidates are allowed and encouraged to ask questions. Unless a question is asked, the Orientation will be read verbatim, word for word, with no additional comment. After the Orientation is read, candidates are walked through the facility so they can familiarize themselves with the test site. Once the test commences, candidates are not allowed to ask any questions. Williams’ Test Experience In October 2012, after successful completion of the Firefighter II course at First Coast, Williams applied for and was approved to take the State certification examination. The exam was conducted at First Coast on the school’s training grounds. The test was conducted by certified employees of the Department. Williams did not pass the examination. One of her shortcomings in that test was a failure in the ladder evolution. Her timed completion of that evolution was in excess of the required time of four minutes and 30 seconds. Williams had been confident she would pass the certification exam because it was similar to the final exam she had passed at First Coast during her schooling. She believes she failed because she was too nervous when she took the exam when it was administered as the actual State certification test. After failing the exam, Williams then applied for a retest which would be held at the Fire College on February 7, 2013. That re-test is the focus of the instant proceeding. On the morning of the retest, Williams arrived well in advance of the 7:30 a.m., start time. As she inspected her gear in anticipation of the start of the exam, she found that the SCBA regulator she was supposed to use did not properly fit the face mask on her helmet. There were extra regulators behind one of the tables being used to process applicants for that day’s test. Examiner Harper was sitting at that table and was providing paperwork to applicants who had already signed in at the first processing station. Williams went to Harper’s table and was allowed to obtain a new regulator. Inasmuch as she was already at Harper’s table getting her replacement regulator before going to the first processing station, Williams went ahead and filled out the paperwork Harper was providing to candidates at his processing station. That is, she filled out the paperwork before actually checking in at the first station. Williams then went to the first check-in table which was manned by Examiner Rochford. She provided her identification to Rochford and was assigned candidate number 37. Rochford then told Williams to go to Harper’s table to fill out the paperwork at that station. Williams told Rochford she had already done so and walked away. (At that point, Williams remembers Rochford yelling at her, asking whether she understood his order and telling her in a harsh manner to obey him. Rochford does not remember talking to Williams at all. Neither version of this alleged confrontation is persuasive. Inasmuch as the conversation was not verified one way or another by a third person -- although there were probably a number of other people around, it will not be considered to have happened for purposes of this Recommended Order.) The Orientation was then read to the candidates. The various portions of the test were addressed in the Orientation. The ladder evolution contained the following language, which Rochford read verbatim to the candidates without anything added or deleted: “Time starts when you touch anything. Time ends when the candidate and victim fully exit the building.” There is no evidence that any of the candidates asked a question concerning this part of the Orientation. Rochford’s timing policy regarding the ladder evolution differs from what he read to the candidates. He takes the position that time stops when the candidate exits the building with the victim, places the victim on the ground in an appropriate manner, and issues a verbal statement into the radio indicating that the firefighter and victim are out of the building. By his own admission, Rochford could not speak to how other examiners handle this timing issue. Harper, who was Williams’ assigned examiner on the test, also seemed to require candidates to lay the victim down and make radio contact before stopping the time. Neither Rochford nor Harper satisfactorily explained why their timing policy was different from what was stated in the orientation. The testimony concerning the correct way of timing the evolution was, at best, confusing. The following statements from the record provide contradictory and disparate opinions by various examiners: Rochford: “As soon as they lay the mannequin on the ground [and] announce they have exited the building . . . the time stops.” Tr. p. 45, lines 9-18 “The mannequin’s feet have got to be outside the plane from the door opening. That’s when the time stops.” Id. Lines 23- 25. “Until they talk on the radio is – - when they finish talking on the radio is when the time would stop.” Tr. p. 255, lines 7-9. Johnson: “At that point, they’ll use one of the prescribed methods for rescue to take the victim and themselves past the threshold out to the fresh air. At that point, the time stops.” Tr. p. 111, lines 11-14 “I read [the Orientation] word for word.” Tr. p. 114, line 23 “On the ladder rescue evolution . . . we [examiners] all stop when they pass the threshold.” Harper: “Then they’re told to lay the victim down, make radio contact you’re out of the building. Time stops.” Tr. p. 138, lines 7-8 “After they make radio contact.” Tr. p. 147, line 3 “[Orientation] says time starts when they touch anything, time ends when the candidate and the victim fully exit the building.” Tr. P. 148, lines 15-17 Hackett: “It stops when the victim comes out of the building.” Tr. p. 222, lines 7-8 [If the victim was thrown out of the building by the firefighter] “I think they would stop the clock.” Id., lines 9-11 “It is part of the timed part that they have to designate that they’re out of the building safely and lay down the victim.” Tr. pp. 222, line 24 through 223, line 1 Question to Hackett: “If [Williams] is coming out and she dropped the victim and picked up -- and presumably picked it up or whatever and then radioed, would that add time?” Answer: “No.” Tr. p. 246, lines 5- 10 Williams was timed by Harper when she took the ladder evolution portion of the exam. According to Harper’s (deposition) testimony, he subscribes to the version of timing that requires the victim to be laid down on the ground and the firefighter to make radio contact. Using that version of timing, Williams received a time of four minutes and 35 seconds for the entire ladder evolution portion of the test. In March, the Department mailed out notices to all the candidates that had tested on February 7. Notices of failure were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. Williams’ letter was returned to the Department as unclaimed. Williams at some point in time found out from Chief McElroy, head of the Fire Academy, that she had purportedly failed the exam. She began calling examiner Harper in March seeking to find out what portion of the exam she had not successfully completed. She had at least two telephone conversations with Harper in March 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Department re-sent the failure letter to Williams, again by certified mail. This time, the letter was claimed by Williams and she became officially aware that she had not passed the exam. The basis given for Williams’ failure was that she did not complete the ladder evolution within the prescribed time parameters. She was timed at four minutes and 35 seconds, just five seconds beyond the allowable limit. It is her contention that she exited the building with the victim within the four minute/30 second time frame. The basis for her belief is that she has done the test so many times that she knows when she is behind schedule. During the test she did not stumble, drop any equipment, or have any other problem that would have added to her time. So, she concludes, she must have completed the evolution timely. Her personal feelings on the matter, without further corroboration or support, are not persuasive. Harper did not testify at final hearing. The transcript of his deposition taken in this case was admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Harper talks about his policy regarding timing of the evolution. His policy is the same as Rochford’s and is discussed above. He does not specifically say if he employed that policy when timing Williams during her test on February 7, 2013. He does not explain the difference between the Orientation statement about timing and his personal policy. The most persuasive evidence at final hearing established that it would have taken ten to 15 seconds after exiting the building to lay the victim down and make radio contact. The radio contact itself would have taken about four seconds. If Harper had stopped his timing when Williams and the victim broke the threshold of the building, her time would have likely been less than four minutes and 30 seconds. If he used his personal timing policy, then the time of four minutes/35 seconds was probably accurate. Harper deducted points from Williams’ score because of other minor mistakes. The totality of those points would not have caused Williams to fail the test. It was the ladder evolution time that caused the failure. In fact, Williams successfully completed all portions of the re-test except for the timing issue in the ladder evolution portion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, rescinding the failing score on the State Firefighter Certification Examination for Catalina Williams and certifying her as a Firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Seth D. Corneal, Esquire The Corneal Law Firm 904 Anastasia Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Michael Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, the Petitioner has been employed as a firefighter with the Metro-Dade Fire Department. The Petitioner's primary function with the Metro-Dade Fire Department is as a firefighter. By letter dated May 30, 1991, and received on June 10, 1991, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent for Firefighters Supplemental Compensation at the Bachelor degree level. Three transcripts were submitted with the Petitioner's application. The first was from Miami-Dade Community College, and showed that an Associate of Science degree in Fire Science was awarded to the Petitioner on May 4, 1991. The second transcript was from Broward Community College, showing many courses taken by Petitioner, but no degree awarded. 3/ The third transcript was from Florida International University, and showed that a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Industrial Technology was awarded to Petitioner on December 12, 1980. Petitioner's Bachelor degree from Florida International University is not based upon, and does not include, any of the courses in fire science that formed the basis for Petitioner's Associate degree from Miami-Dade Community College. 4/ Petitioner's transcript of her Bachelor degree does not reveal a major study concentration area of at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours which is readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related. On or about June 24, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Associate degree level by virtue of her Associate of Science degree in Fire Science from Miami-Dade Community College. On or about June 26, 1991, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that she was not eligible for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program at the Bachelor degree level because Petitioner's major in Industrial Technology from Florida International University was not a recognized Major Study Concentration Area in Rule 4A-37.084. The denial letter cites and quotes the definition of "Bachelor's Degree" at Rule 4A- 37.084(3), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 4A-37.084(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the rule which is the subject of this rule challenge proceeding, reads as follows (with the challenged portion underscored [<> --Ed.]): "Bachelor's Degree" means a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree conferred by an accredited post-secondary institution provided the major study concentration area is readily identifiable and applicable as fire- related. A firefighter may receive Supplemental Compensation based on possession of a Bachelor's Degree regardless of whether or not an Associate Degree was previously earned. <In no event shall receipt of a transcript for an Associate Decree be used in consideration for qualification of the Bachelor's Degree Supplemental Compensation.> The major study concentration area, at least 18 semester hours or 27 quarter hours, must be readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related. Those major study concentration areas specifically defined in this rule chapter are considered to be readily identifiable and applicable as fire-related.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Minimum Standards Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Certification Retest.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was certified as a Florida firefighter by Respondent on June 27, 1991, being issued certificate number C- 62497. During the period 1991 through 1994, Petitioner was not active as a firefighter, either in a paid or volunteer role. He maintained his certification by completion of a 40-hour continuing education class in vehicle extrication in 1994. During the period 1994 through 2000, Petitioner was not active as a firefighter, either in a paid or volunteer role. His primary income was derived from being a painting contractor. Effective July 1995, Florida's law, regarding certification of firefighters, changed to require firefighters to take and pass the Examination when they have not been active as a firefighter, either paid or as a volunteer, for a period of three years. The Florida law was Section 633.352, Florida Statutes. As a result, in order for Petitioner to retain his certification, he was required to take the Examination. On September 8, 2000, Petitioner made application to take the Examination, which consisted of four areas--SCBA, Hose Operations, Ladder Operations, and Fireground Skills. Petitioner's primary preparation for the Examination was a private refresher course offered by the Marion County School Board. The refresher course consisted of a 24-hour class, spread over three days. The refresher course reviewed the four areas on the Examination. During the refresher course, approximately 20 hours were devoted to practicing the four areas. As to practicing the SCBA skill, under the supervision of an instructor, two to three hours on the first day were devoted to timed conditions and one to two hours on the second and third day were devoted to timed conditions. The instructor of the course taught and explained to the attendees, including Petitioner, that time was an issue in the Examination and that completing the timed skills within the maximum time allotted is pass/fail. On September 25, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination. None of the candidates taking the Examination were identified by name but were given numbers for identification. Prior to March 1, 2000, the scoring system for the Examination consisted of initially giving each candidate 100 points and thereafter, subtracting points for things done incorrectly. On and after March 1, 2000, the scoring system changed and consisted of each candidate starting with zero points and being awarded points for things done correctly. Three of the four skilled areas on the Examination were being timed. The timed skills were SCBA, Hose Operations, and Ladder Operations and mandatory steps existed for each skill. Each mandatory step for each skill was required to be successfully completed and, if not, the candidate received an automatic failing score for the skill. Examiners for the Examination, during orientation, reviewed the timed skills with the candidates and explained the grading for each of the skills. Furthermore, the examiners explained to the candidates that time was pass/fail for the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills. The minimum score required to pass the Examination was 70 on each of the four skills. Petitioner received a score of zero on each of the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills, which was failing for both. The maximum time allotted for SCBA was one minute and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took one minute and fifty seconds; and for Ladder Operations was two minutes and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took three minutes and twenty-five seconds. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for both skills. On November 29, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination Retest. He was only required to re-take the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills; both again being timed. For the Examination Retest, Petitioner did not take a refresher course. He arrived at the Examination Retest early and was present for the orientation given by the examiners. Again, during the orientation, the examiners reviewed the timed skill with the candidates and explained the grading for each of the skills. Furthermore, the examiners again explained to the candidates that time was pass/fail on SCBA and Ladder Operations. On the Examination Retest, Petitioner passed the Ladder Operations skill. However, Petitioner failed the SCBA skill, having received a score of zero. The maximum time allotted for SCBA was one minute and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took two minutes and twenty-six seconds. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for the SCBA skill. By letter dated December 7, 2000, Respondent notified Petitioner, among other things, that he had not successfully completed the Examination Retest and that, therefore, his application to retain his certification was denied. Applicants for retention of their certification are permitted to take the Examination Retest only once. An applicant for retention of certification, who fails the Examination and the Examination Retest, must take and successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course before being allowed to take the Examination again. Having unsuccessfully completed the Examination Retest, Petitioner cannot take the Examination again until he takes and successfully completes the Minimum Standards Course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding that Jeffrey M. Williams is not entitled to retention of his firefighter certification and that his certification has expired. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey M. Williams 3241 Arthur Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
